From the Christisn Science Monitor:
Indianapolis – The Bible, it turns out, is too liberal.
At least the Conservative Bible Project thinks so. The group has set itself the task of "translating" the Bible in a more conservative way, so as to eliminate liberal "misinterpretations" and prevent liberal "misconstruals."
This is not a joke. Consider Conservapedia, the conservative perspective Wikipedia site that features this translation project.
When it first started, it was difficult to tell if it was an authentic conservative phenomenon or a parody along the lines of "The Colbert Report." Attempts to parody an extreme group often simply end up resembling an even more extreme, possibly very fringe, but equally real group.
But it has become clear that what looks like an attempt at satire is a real project proposed by people who don't seem to grasp the irony of their endeavor.
Now, with similar irony, the Conservative Bible Project plans to replace text in the Bible, which is often open to more than one interpretation, with new text that will be in accord with how the members of the project interpret the text; in some cases, what they think it really ought to say even though it doesn't.
Surely you won't be surprised that the "translation" is not a translation, but rather a rewriting of the Bible to conservative purposes. No attention whatsoever is given to the meaning of the words in the original languages. The goal is to make the Bible all that a proper conservative Bible should be. Whatever it takes, make the Good Book say what you want it to say.
The author of the article, James F. McGrath, an associate professor of religion at Butler University in Indianapolis, says:
These "translators," if they are serious about what they are proposing to do, are exalting themselves above the Bible and, from the perspective of conservative Christianity, above God.
If nothing else, the project illustrates the fact that "conservative" and "Bible-believing" are not the same thing, despite what you'll often hear.
Whaaat! Say it ain't so. What do you think? Here are the guidelines from the folks at Conservapedia for their ideal Bible.
As of 2009, there is no fully conservative translation of the Bible which satisfies the following ten guidelines:[2]
1. Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias
2. Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, "gender inclusive" language, and other feminist distortions; preserve many references to the unborn child (the NIV deletes these)
3. Not Dumbed Down: not dumbing down the reading level, or diluting the intellectual force and logic of Christianity; the NIV is written at only the 7th grade level[3]
4. Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms to capture better the original intent;[4] Defective translations use the word "comrade" three times as often as "volunteer"; similarly, updating words that have a change in meaning, such as "word", "peace", and "miracle".
5. Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction[5] by using modern terms for it, such as "gamble" rather than "cast lots";[6] using modern political terms, such as "register" rather than "enroll" for the census
6. Accept the Logic of Hell: applying logic with its full force and effect, as in not denying or downplaying the very real existence of Hell or the Devil.
7. Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning
8. Exclude Later-Inserted Inauthentic Passages: excluding the interpolated passages that liberals commonly put their own spin on, such as the adulteress story
9. Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples: crediting open-mindedness, often found in youngsters like the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels
10. Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word "Lord" rather than "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "Lord God."
I don't know about you, but I'm pre-ordering my copy. Gimme that ol' time conservative Bible.
Thanks to Chris for the link.
Isn't it ironic, though that it is always the liberals who are accused of re-writing the Bible. Some do, it's true (I think of Jefferson's blue-penciled version) but at least now the conservatives are on record that rewriting is fine, as long as they are the ones doing it!
ReplyDeleteWhat are they taking as the base text for their translation, the Hebrew and Greek originals, or the King James version?
ReplyDeleteThey'll be restoring the verses where Jesus demands Blind Bartimaeus and Lazarus's Blue Cross/Blue Shield cards, won't they?
ReplyDeleteErika, I don't know. I didn't delve deeply into the details of the process of their "scholarly" endeavors. The NIV seems to be singled out for particular disdain.
ReplyDeleteThe NIV? Amusing. That has been the preferred translation among evangelicals for years now. I am guessing they have not noticed that "liberal" Bible scholars have relegated the passage about the woman taken in adultery to a footnote or clearly noted that it is a later addition. But rational scholarship and precision are not likely to prevail here.
ReplyDelete*rolls eyes*
Off topic - Rick Warren has finally denounced the Ugandan anti-gay bill as "extreme, unjust and unchristian towards homosexuals". So where's Rowan?
ReplyDeleteSo they can't just use the KJV? Is that too liberal for them or just not literal enough for them.
ReplyDeleteWord Verification thingie = Marcel
Remember those things Mimi?
You'll have to wait for a copy, Mimi; they only (to date) have completed Matthew, Mark, Philemon, Jude, and Revelation. They are working from the KJV and altering it to taste. These guys wouldn't know Koine if it bit them.
ReplyDeletePaul, stop the eye rolling, please.
ReplyDeleteSo where's Rowan?
Lapin, I suppose bringing up in the rear or dropped out of the race.
Susan, the waves? Even I don't go that far back.
Paul (A.), you and Erika have found me out. My coverage of the story is shamefully superficial. I know that if either of you had a blog, you'd never do produce such shoddy results.
The whole thing just beggars belief. The problem they face is that, as Stephen Colbert points out, reality tends to have an unfair liberal bias.
ReplyDeleteOn a related tangent, Ray Comfort has published his own special edition of Origin of the Species. Volunteers were handing out copies in front of my place of work a few weeks back. My only hope is that interest in studying and memorizing Scripture (and other important books) might increase so that people can easily spot bogus editions and translations.
ReplyDeleteWhat I find really special in their guidelines is "Accept the Logic of Hell" and "Express Free Market Parables".
ReplyDeleteAnd they very likely home school their children to prevent contamination by reality.
Reminds me of the quote (can't remember by who), "you know you have created God in your image when God hates the same people you do."
ReplyDeleteWe went in a local "Christian bookstore" today to purchase a gift. You could only find KJV or NIV Bibles only. No other versions. They haven't a clue about a BCP. There was a big section listed as resources for evangicals. I told Sarah we needed to leave because I was having flash backs and beginning to have a tic.
Goofy to the nth degree. But not unprecedented, alas:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.amazon.com/Inclusive-Bible-First-Egalitarian-Translation/dp/1580512135/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260504700&sr=1-1
Oh, sigh!
ReplyDeleteAren't these the same people who call the Bible "The Good Book"? Not good enough, eh?
I told Sarah we needed to leave because I was having flash backs and beginning to have a tic.
ReplyDeleteRolling on the floor, Two Auntees.
Mimi,
ReplyDeleteI am so glad to see the reactions of your grand group here! I got the giggles when I read all of the responses! :-)
I wonder if Adam Smith knew that God created capitalism?
ReplyDeleteCiss, I knew my friends would come through for me.
ReplyDeleteMakes me so proud to be here in Indianapolis. Not!
ReplyDeleteSo they can't just use the KJV?
ReplyDeleteThey don't understand that funny thee-thou bidness, either.
Oh, Paulas!
ReplyDeletePadre, you could offer them your services. With the intertubes, you don't have to actually BE in Indianapolis. You can send your wisdom through the tubes.
The KJV isn't literal at all. It's based on the 12th century Parisian changed (the Sorbonne) in the Old Latin, which was by then a thousand years old and lacked the requite ( and novel)Ecclesiological/Social/Political Scholasticims...
ReplyDeleteThank you, Göran. Did you mean liberal, instead of literal?
ReplyDelete